cmc_quotes_latest

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing. It does not state auth requirements, rate limits, what happens when an unknown symbol/id is supplied, or how the 'latest' snapshot is scoped (spot price? market cap?). The skip_invalid parameter clearly implies a failure mode that the description never explains.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, zero filler, and the identifier-preference advice is placed immediately after the purpose statement. Nothing is padded or restated from the title.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. But with zero annotations and 0% schema description coverage across five parameters, the identifier ambiguity between ids/slugs/symbols and the skip_invalid semantics are left for the agent to guess. The description is materially incomplete for the tool's complexity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for five undocumented parameters. It covers only the ids-vs-symbols tradeoff and says nothing about slugs, convert (default USD, max 3 targets), or skip_invalid, whose behavior is entirely opaque without prose.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Get the latest CoinMarketCap market quotes'. Combined with the name's 'latest' token, it distinguishes itself from the historical siblings (cmc_cmc100_historical, cmc_fear_greed_historical, etc.) and from listing/info tools. It stops short of explicitly naming which sibling to use instead for other quote shapes.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

'Prefer CMC IDs over symbols when identity ambiguity matters' gives real guidance on which identifier to supply, which is more than most definitions offer. However, it says nothing about when to choose this tool over cmc_listings_latest, cmc_crypto_info, or the cmc100/cmc20 index variants, leaving primary tool-selection inference to the agent.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.